On August 7, the FCC is set to vote on a significant proposal that may abandon its ambitious goal of providing gigabit broadband speeds to every American. This shift follows a decision made by the Democratic-led commission last year to redefine minimum broadband standards, raising the bar from 25Mbps download and 3Mbps upload speeds to 100/20Mbps. It additionally established a long-term target of achieving 1,000Mbps download and 500Mbps upload. However, Brendan Carr, the FCC chair appointed by former President Trump, has consistently pushed for a “technology neutral” approach, emphasizing that only fiber internet can effectively meet the 1,000/500Mbps benchmarks. Carr’s proposal suggests that the previous FCC’s goals exceed the stipulations of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, which mandates the FCC to promote reasonable and timely broadband deployment to all Americans. He argues that such long-term aspirations could distort the market by favoring specific technologies.
A key element of Carr’s proposal is a proposed shift in how the FCC measures broadband deployment. Previous assessments indicated that 7% of Americans lacked access to the newly defined 100/20Mbps speeds. Carr contends that this method is fundamentally flawed, as it focuses on existing deployment rather than the ongoing process of delivering broadband services. He highlights a crucial phrase in Section 706, arguing that the FCC should interpret the deployment status in a manner consistent with the “reasonable and timely” language of the statute. Carr’s approach indicates that as long as broadband is being rolled out, the FCC may not need to declare a failure to meet the standard, regardless of actual access levels. This reasoning is positioned against the backdrop of a pending $42.5 billion federal funding allocation aimed at aiding broadband infrastructure expansion.
Moreover, Carr’s proposal notably sidelines the topic of broadband affordability, a concern that has gained increasing attention. He argues that the previous FCC improperly included various universal service criteria, such as affordability, into Section 706’s goals. This is a contentious issue, as many broadband experts maintain that high costs are a primary barrier hindering home internet access for millions of Americans. Historical data reveal that cost significantly outweighs availability as a reason for many not subscribing to broadband services. Despite affordability being highlighted in previous reports, the lack of tangible progress on the matter has led states to take the lead on addressing this issue.
Notably, New York has enacted legislation requiring internet providers to offer low-income residents plans priced as low as $15 per month, a move that has received judicial backing from the Supreme Court. However, announcements from major providers such as AT&T to withdraw certain affordable services from New York indicate a troubling trend of retrenchment in addressing affordability issues. The apparent lack of federal focus on the affordability aspect of broadband leaves many advocates concerned about the long-term implications for access and equity in internet services.
Experts like Sean Gonsalvez reiterate that if broadband isn’t affordable, it cannot truly be deemed accessible. A Pew Research survey underscores this view, revealing that a substantial number of individuals cite cost as their primary reason for lacking a broadband subscription. With the Affordable Connectivity Program winding down, which had offered subsidies to low-income families, the future for broadband affordability rests uneasily on state initiatives and legislative frameworks rather than federal guidance.
As the FCC prepares for its critical vote, the outcome may have lasting implications for broadband policy in the United States. The debate encapsulates broader tensions between technology preferences, affordability, and equitable access to internet services. Given the pressures faced by low-income households and the persistence of the digital divide, the comprehensive approach to broadband deployment remains a pivotal topic of discussion as the FCC charts its course ahead.
